Grocery Shopping Among the Food Insecure

Anne Geoghegan, Aaron Knestrict, Stacey Radziwon, Tina Toquica

Abstract Grocery shopping is a food procurement strategy important for understanding the population living in a food desert. Previous research has found differences in shopping behaviors between men and women, and among household structures (Ahuja, Capella, Taylor, 1998; Blake et al., 2009). However, previous research has not considered gender differences or household structure differences in grocery shopping in a population that is food insecure and/or living in a food desert. A quantitative survey that included questions about grocery store shopping was administered to clients of the Saint Vincent DePaul Food Pantry over the course of six weeks. Research found that household structure and gender affect the food procurement strategies of people in a food insecure situation. It was found that household structure influences who is more likely to be the primary shopper. Gender differences influence the type of store used to grocery shop. The research provides a better understanding of the population served by SVDP and gives insight to the particular struggles that food insecure populations face when living in a food desert.

Research Question

How does household structure and gender affect grocery shopping methods in a food insecure population?

Background/ Past Research• Food insecurity is limited availability of nutritious and sufficient food and the

limited capacity of obtaining that food by socially acceptable methods (Townsend, Love, Achterberg, & Murphy, 2001).

• Food access is having the resources and ability to obtain food, also food insecurity refers to having a decent size store that would sell a variety of nourishing food at a reasonable price and that is located at a reasonable distance (Pringle, 2013).

• According a report supported by the USDA, in 2009 14.7% of U.S households were food insecure and 5.7% were experiencing low food insecurity (Ivers et al., 2011).

• Women are more prone to poverty than men are. (Pressman, 2002) • Mothers were more likely than fathers to be single and to receive food assistance

and to have lower incomes (Devine, Farrell, Blake, Jastran, Wethington, & Bisogni, 2009).

• Some examples or coping strategies for the food insecure are: 1) food prepared at/ away from home 2) missing meals 3)individualizing meals (family eats differently, separately, or together) 4) speeding up to save time 5) planning ahead. (Devine et al., 2009)

Background/ Past Research• It has been widely found that walking and taking public transportation are the two

methods that are used the most by participants when procuring food in a food insecure situation. (Smith & Hoerr, 1992).

• In a study conducted by the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at Michigan State University, it was found that many single mothers and the households they head were food pantry dependent. Due to the high consumption of food that these families had to provide, the family’s food stamps would only last three weeks instead of four, forcing both the mother and her children to skip meals more frequently (Smith & Hoerr, 1992).

• Single mothers also use high levels of planning, often weeks in advance, schedule shopping trips, economize, and make use of information while shopping (Ahuja et al.,1998; Gifford, 2011).

• While both married mothers and single mothers hold similar attitudes toward grocery shopping, and purchase majority of their groceries from a supermarket, single mothers spend significantly less than married mothers. Even when income level and household size were kept constant, the difference remained statistically significant (Ahuja et al., 1998).

Method A survey was developed and passed out to clients of Saint Vincent DePaul Food Pantry over the course of six weeks. Clients living in the zipcode 45202, 45203, 45214, 45219, 45225, 45229, or 45232 are eligible to use the services at Saint Vincent DePaul. They also must bring a picture ID, social security cards, or a printout for the entire household, and proof of address. The survey was developed after reading previous research articles on the topic of food insecurity. Participants were asked questions about their household structure (11 items), food procurement strategies (4 items), grocery shopping (5 items), coping strategies (1 item) and their experience at Saint Vincent DePaul Food Pantry (5 items). Students from Xavier University visited Saint Vincent DePaul on Friday and Saturday mornings over the course of six weeks. As clients walked in, students approached them to ask if they were willing to participate in the survey. If clients agreed, they were given the questionnaire. Some participants took the survey themselves, while others were interviewed by a Xavier University student. 106 clients were surveyed over this time period.

Results

• Men and women equally indicated that they were the primary shoppers in their household. 46.2% of the valid responses of “I do” when being asked who shops for the household were women. 45.1% were men.

• More men walk to the grocery store than women. 34.7% of the people who responded to that they walked to the grocery store were men saying yes. 18.8% were women who also responded yes.

• More women drive their own car to the grocery store than men.

Percentage of the person usually does the shopping for household. Comparison by

household Structure

I do Another adult in household Relative/ friend not in household0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

34.40%

1.10% 0.00%

57.00%

5.40%

2.20%

Single person household2 or more person household

Response categories

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of the person who usually does the shopping for household. Comparison by gender

I do Another adult in household Relative/friend not in household0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

46.20%

1.10%0.00%

45.10%

5.50%

2.20%

FemaleMale

Response categories

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of time taken to get to the grocery store. Comparison by household structure

0-10 minutes 11-20 minutes 21-30 minutes 31-40 minutes 41-50 minutes 51-60 minutes0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

3.00%

7.80%

2.00%

1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

12.60%

16.40%

5.80%

1.00% 1.00%

1.90%

Single person household2 or more person householdPe

rcen

tage

Time

Percentage of time taken to get to the grocery store. Comparison by gender

0-10 minutes 11-20 minutes 21-30 minutes 31-40 minutes 41-50 minutes 51-60 minutes0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

5.90%

18.80%

4.90%

1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

7.90%

14.80%

3.00%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

FemaleMale

Time

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of amount spent per grocery shopping trip. Comparison by household

structure

$1-$100 $101-$200 $201-$300 $301-$4000.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

16.80%

5.60%

1.40%0.00%

30.80%

23.70%

7.00%

2.80%

Single person household2 or more person household

Dollars

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of amount spent per grocery shopping trip. Comparison by gender

$1-$100 $101-$200 $201-$300 $301-$4000.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

20%

10%

6%

3%

31.10%

11.40%

7.10%

0.00%

FemaleMale

Dollars

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of people who answered yes to utilizing various methods of transportation.

Comparison by household structure

Walk Bike

Drive o

wn car

Get a r

ide

Take

a tax

i

Take

the b

us

Take

a gro

up van

Other tra

nsporta

tion0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

22.30%

2.90%3.90%

8.80%

1.90%

9.70%

1.00% 1.00%

30.10%

1.90%

20.40%

25.50%

3.90%

21.40%

1.00%

Single person household2 or more person household

Methods of transportation

Perc

ent

Percentage of people who answered yes to utilizing various methods of transportation.

Comparison by gender

Walk Bike

Drive o

wn car

Get a r

ide

Take

a tax

i

Take

the b

us

Take

a gro

up van

Other tra

nsporta

tion0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

18.80%

1.00%

15.80%

19.00%

3.00%

12.90%

1.00%3.00%

34.70%

4.00%

7.90%

15.00%

3.00%

17.80%

1.00% 1.00%

FemaleMale

Methods of transportation

Perc

ent

Percentage of large grocery store visitation per month. Comparison by household structure

0 1 2 3 4 50.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

1.10%

11.70%

7.40%

3.20%

5.30%

2.10%1.10%

9.60%

21.30%

13.80%

10.60%

12.80%Single person household2 or more person household

Frequency of visit per month

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of neighborhood or corner store visitation per month. Comparison by household

structure

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

8.30%

6.90%

4.20%

5.60%

1.40%

2.80%

13.90%

12.50%

6.90%

15.30%

8.30%

13.90%

Single person household2 or more person household

Frequency of visit per month

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of gas station or convenience store visitation per month. Comparison by household

structure

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

20.00%

3.30%

1.70%

3.30%

0.00%

1.70%

26.70%

13.30%

11.70%

3.30%

8.30%

6.70%

Single person household2 or more person household

Frequency of visit per month

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of farmer’s market visitations per month. Comparison by household structure

0 1 2 3 4 5 or more0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

13.80%

10.80%

3.10%

0.00%

1.50% 1.50%

16.90% 16.90%

20.00%

6.20%

9.20%

0.00%

Single Person Household2 or more person household

Frequency of visit per month

Perc

enta

ges

Discussion & Conclusion The results of this research are important in several capacities. As discovered in preliminary research, there is a gap in the literature which this research has identified and helped fill. SVDP also benefits from the results, giving alternative dimensions to the struggle and strategies of the population served. Future projects may also be affected by the results of this research, either using it for background knowledge, a launching point, or to change policies that affect such populations. This research is not free from limitations, however. The population surveyed is limited and deeply affected by the local climate. As such, some results may not be widely replicable as the population surveyed is not generally reflective of food bank users. The survey was written with a slightly different population assumed, and therefore some results and questions are irrelevant. Another limitation is the time during which the survey was conducted. SVDP is open Tuesday, Friday, and Saturday. This survey was administered on Fridays and Saturdays, crossing months which opens the possibility of potentially surveying someone twice.

Future Research

Future research could alter the survey to focus on specific issues this research uncovered. It could also take the survey to other areas and other food banks, both within the Cincinnati, Ohio, or Midwest area, and out into other locations in America. Future research could also examine more closely the effects of gender and household structure on all aspects of poverty and food insecurity.

References• Ahuja, R. D., Capella, L. M., & Taylor, R. D. (1998). Child influences, attitudinal and behavioral comparisons

between single parent and dual parent households in grocery shopping decisions. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(1), 48-62.

• Blake, C. E., Farrell, T. J., Bisogni, C. A., Jastran, M., Devine, C. M., & Wethington, E. (2009). Employed parents' satisfaction with food-choice coping strategies. Influence of gender and structure [electronic resource]. Appetite, 52(3), 711-719.

• Darko, J. (2013). Shopping behaviors of low-income families during a 1-month period of time.45, 20-29.

• Devine, C. M., Farrell, T. J., Blake, C. E., Jastran, M., Wethington, E., & Bisogni, C. A. (2009). Work Conditions and the Food Choice Coping Strategies of Employed Parents. Journal Of Nutrition Education And Behavior, 41(5), 365-370.

• Eicher-Miller, H., Mason, A., & Abbott, A. (2009). The effect of food stamp nutrition education on the food insecurity of low-income women participants.41, 161-168.

• Hendricks, S. & Hendricks S. (2002) Unfair Burden: Women's Risks and Vulnerability to Food Insecurity. Agenda, 51, 51-57.

Cont.

• Ivers, L., & Cullen, K. (2011). Food insecurity: special considerations for women. American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition, 94(6), 1740S-1744.

• Pressman, S. (2002). Explaining the Gender Poverty Gap in Developed and Transitional Economies. Journal of Economic Issues, 36(1) 17-40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4227746

• Pringle, P. (Ed.). (2013). A place at the table. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

• Sim, M., Glanville, T., & McIntyre, L. (2011). Food management behaviours: In food-insecure, lone mother-led families.72, 123-130.

• Smith, P., & Hoerr, S. (1994). A comparison of current food bank users, non-users and past users in a population of low income single mothers 24, 59-66.

• Stevens, C. (2009). Exploring food insecurity among young mothers (15–24 years), 1-9.

• Thiagarajan, P., Ponder, N., & Lueg, J. (2009). The effects of role strain on the consumer decision process for groceries in single-parent households. 207-215.

Cont.• Townsend, M., Peerson, J., Love, B., Achterberg, C., & Murphy, S. (2001). Food insecurity is

positively related to overweight in women. The Journal of Nutrition, 131(6), 1738-1742.

• Wiig, K., & Smith, C. (2009). The art of grocery shopping on a food stamp budget: Factors influencing the food choices of low-income women as they try to make ends meet. Public Health Nutrition, 12(10), 1726-1734.

• Wood, D. K., Shultz, J., Butkus, S. N., & Ballejos, M. (2009). Patterns of Food Coping Strategies Among Food Pantry Clients. Journal Of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 4(2), 185-202. doi:10.1080/19320240902915292

• Wood, D. K., Shultz, J., Edlefsen, M., & Butkus, S. (2006). Food Coping Strategies Used by Food Pantry Clients at Different Levels of Household Food Security Status. Journal Of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 1(3), 45-68. doi:10.1300/J477v01n03_04

•Zekeri, A. A. (2010). Household food insecurity and depression among single mothers in rural Alabama. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 25(1), 90-102.